Zedlee wrote:My concern is what if RL loses his edge and his skills diminish? Or has another playoff meltdown? wtf do we do then?

The new coach could make a difference but doubtful. We have to keep in mind that we're getting an older Lu and a pissed off Lu whose mentally checked out no matter how hard he tries to check back in. And we haven't talked about the other big factors at play here. In years past when we didn't have a capable backup in Schneids, the concern was he played too many games in the regular season and burnt out in the playoffs. That was when he was still in his 20's. Can he play 65+ games at this age? Can we afford to have him use the first month of the season to find his game like he normally does with no one really to bail him out? Then there's the Olympics. Imagine 65+ games, plus having to fly all the way over to Russia for another half dozen games if Price, Brodeur, Crawford, etc. prove incapable. Not to mention the Twins, Kes, Edler (if he's still with us) having to fly over as well.

A bad move is looking worse and worse. If nothing else, I'm excited about the kids we drafted and maybe it's a good thing because we got a head start on that rebuild that may just be coming sooner rather than later.

vic wrote:The team only scoring 8 goals (2PP GOALS and ZERO in the 7th game AT HOME) had nothing to do with costing the team a cup.

Shhh... you'll mess people up with this logic stuff.

Of course the 8 goals had a lot to do with it. I mentioned the meltdowns weren't the ONLY reason, didn't I??

Lu played 3 outstanding games in the Finals, the other 4 he may as well have sat in the stands and there wouldn't have been much difference. All we needed from him was to show up for 1 more great game when he proved capable of 3. ONE MORE and maybe the teams finds a way to score that extra 9th or 10th goal to win us the Cup. That was the formula for winning the 3 games and that was the formula we needed to use to win the 4th given how incredibly stingy Thomas and the Bruins were..but Lu didn't give them a chance. Is it too much to ask for 1 more game when Thomas gave it his all in each and every one his 7??

Sorry man, if you play 3 great games and completely suck in the other 4 it doesn't matter if the team couldn't score more than 8 goals...you don't get off easy..not in my books..not logically speaking if you want to get into logics.

I think your logic is cockeyed. It's a team sport, Henrik could have scored in game 6 too. Besides if Lou had been traded perhaps you could define him canuck career by your judgments but he now has a chance to write a new chapter

vic wrote:The team only scoring 8 goals (2PP GOALS and ZERO in the 7th game AT HOME) had nothing to do with costing the team a cup.

Shhh... you'll mess people up with this logic stuff.

All we needed from him was to show up for 1 more great game when he proved capable of 3. ONE MORE and maybe the teams finds a way to score that extra 9th or 10th goal to win us the Cup. That was the formula for winning the 3 games and that was the formula we needed to use to win the 4th given how incredibly stingy Thomas and the Bruins were..but Lu didn't give them a chance. Is it too much to ask for 1 more game when Thomas gave it his all in each and every one his 7??

Sorry man, if you play 3 great games and completely suck in the other 4 it doesn't matter if the team couldn't score more than 8 goals...you don't get off easy..not in my books..not logically speaking if you want to get into logics.

Lou needed three shutouts to win that series, he got 2.

The team was slaughtered in game 3 and laid an egg in game 4.

The leagues Art Ross winner and the teams best goal scorer was humiliated in game 6 by a rat and again out worked out classed and laid another egg in game 7.

He got a shutout in game 1, won game 2, needed a shutout in games 3 and 4 to win either of them, got a shutout in game 5,needed a shutout until the final 2 minutes of game 6 when Lappy scored a meaningless goal and needed a shutout in game 7.

Had the Canucks managed to win game 7, many writers and hockey analysts were calling for Lou to win the Conn Smythe.

Claude Julien figured out how to beat the Canucks, AV didn't have an answer.

The leagues Art Ross winner and the teams best goal scorer was humiliated in game 6 by a rat and again out worked out classed and laid another egg in game 7.

He got a shutout in game 1, won game 2, needed a shutout in games 3 and 4 to win either of them, got a shutout in game 5,needed a shutout until the final 2 minutes of game 6 when Lappy scored a meaningless goal and needed a shutout in game 7.

Had the Canucks managed to win game 7, many writers and hockey analysts were calling for Lou to win the Conn Smythe.

Claude Julien figured out how to beat the Canucks, AV didn't have an answer.

Yeah, I can see how Lou cost us that series.

I for one am glad he didn't get a shutout in game 7.....cuz at the rate the Canucks were racking up goals we'd STILL be waiting for the deciding goal.

Bang on about Julien figuring out AV and AV being to thick headed to adapt and figure out Julien.

The leagues Art Ross winner and the teams best goal scorer was humiliated in game 6 by a rat and again out worked out classed and laid another egg in game 7.

He got a shutout in game 1, won game 2, needed a shutout in games 3 and 4 to win either of them, got a shutout in game 5,needed a shutout until the final 2 minutes of game 6 when Lappy scored a meaningless goal and needed a shutout in game 7.

Had the Canucks managed to win game 7, many writers and hockey analysts were calling for Lou to win the Conn Smythe.

Claude Julien figured out how to beat the Canucks, AV didn't have an answer.

Yeah, I can see how Lou cost us that series.

I for one am glad he didn't get a shutout in game 7.....cuz at the rate the Canucks were racking up goals we'd STILL be waiting for the deciding goal.

Bang on about Julien figuring out AV and AV being to thick headed to adapt and figure out Julien.

dbr wrote:In seriousness I don't think Luongo's "meltdowns" this past season were games where he should wear the goat horns. Topper put it better (and briefer) already but now I've gone and pulled up Excel so you'll just have to put up with some light number crunching.

In this specific season the entire team was brutal in the 8-3 loss to the Red Wings and the Edmonton loss was him playing behind an AHL lineup (no first line, Ballard/Barker/Corrado/Alberts/Joslin combined for about 100 minutes, Lapierre on for 18 minutes, Ebbett for 17, etc).

The other thing is that their roles were clearly different last year, twice Luongo went in when Schneider had a bad start and while better than Cory statistically in the game, still took a hit on his own numbers; when Luongo had a bad start he was left in for the full 60.

Take out Roberto's relief appearances and there is even less to separate the two: 1.94 GA/60, 0.929 SV%.

Anyway this is all nearly completely pointless since the sample size for each goaltender - but particularly for Luongo - is miniscule. But my point is that if you're willing to engage in the same kind of mental mathematics to Luongo's credit that you were willing to use to discredit Tortorella, his numbers aren't bad at all.

Never said Luongo's numbers were terrible. I only said that Schneider outplayed him. Even with your mathematical adjustments, Schneider's numbers were still better across the board. This is not a slight against Luongo, Schneider was simply better. We didn't keep the better goaltender and Gillis knows it.

As a fan of the team, I was much more comfortable with Schneider in net. Luongo's playoff meltdowns have become such a regular occurrence that no lead is safe in the playoffs with Luongo in net. Part of a goaltender's job is to keep the team in the game. He hasn't done that on a consistent basis in the playoffs. For some reason he's been almost mentally fragile after his first series against the Hawks. It's not about Luongo having a bad start.

I can excuse a bad start, but how many games have we watched Luongo get shelled after looking sharp for more than 20 minutes? That's not a bad start. That's a meltdown. And I don't buy into the team hanging him out to dry, not when Luongo decides to "time" things by flopping on his belly hoping that his glove catches the puck instead of simply staying in position.

Nuckertuzzi wrote:. Is it too much to ask for 1 more game when Thomas gave it his all in each and every one his 7??

"Gave it his all", like when he threw away game 2 nine seconds into overtime in a Cloutier-esque manner?

Lou would have been publicly executed if he'd let that goal in.

The double standard continues.

The guy gave up 8 goals in 7 games, he wins the Cup and Conn Smythe largely due to that series alone and very deservingly so. It was a goaltending performance for the ages...and you use that one goal as an argument??? Weak, dude, weak. "Cloudier-esque"?..holy lord.

The 8 goal argument you guys keep clinging on to had a whole lot to do with Thomas's performance, you ever think of that? We never got the luxury of exploiting soft goaltending because it simply wasn't there save a select few instances. While Ryder was allowed to get wristers from the top of the circle go through our goalie and Marchand getting bad angle shots over his shoulder..just to name a few. Thomas hardly gave us easy ones to work with the way Lu did for them. Thomas took our will away and filled our heads with doubt while Lu handed it to them in spades. You know what a soft wrister over Thomas' shoulder would've done for our confidence? In a series that was about a head-to-head duel between two "equal" goalies Lu got schooled bigtime by the 37 year old and that my friends is the biggest reason we didn't win the Cup that year.

Nuckertuzzi wrote:. Is it too much to ask for 1 more game when Thomas gave it his all in each and every one his 7??

"Gave it his all", like when he threw away game 2 nine seconds into overtime in a Cloutier-esque manner?

Lou would have been publicly executed if he'd let that goal in.

The double standard continues.

The guy gave up 8 goals in 7 games, he wins the Cup and Conn Smythe largely due to that series alone and very deservingly so. It was a goaltending performance for the ages...and you use that one goal as an argument??? Weak, dude, weak. "Cloudier-esque"?..holy lord.

The 8 goal argument you guys keep clinging on to had a whole lot to do with Thomas's performance, you ever think of that? We never got the luxury of exploiting soft goaltending because it simply wasn't there save a select few instances. While Ryder was allowed to get wristers from the top of the circle go through our goalie and Marchand getting bad angle shots over his shoulder..just to name a few. Thomas hardly gave us easy ones to work with the way Lu did for them. Thomas took our will away and filled our heads with doubt while Lu handed it to them in spades. You know what a soft wrister over Thomas' shoulder would've done for our confidence? In a series that was about a head-to-head duel between two "equal" goalies Lu got schooled bigtime by the 37 year old and that my friends is the biggest reason we didn't win the Cup that year.

Giguere was a goaltending performance for the ages.

McLean was amazing in 94.

Vernon stood on his head in 88.

Roy (as a rookie) was lights out.

Dryden.

Kiprusoff in 04.

Cam Ward in 06.

You could make a list...

None of the goaltenders on that list had the defense in front of them that Thomas did. The guy was out of position so much it was hilarious. The only thing funnier was the pathetic offense that the Canucks mounted and the complete lack of awareness that Vigneault displayed in setting up their game plan. Tampa Bay totally exposed Tim Thomas' weakness in the conference final, he's too aggressive on the puck. If the NHL hadn't told the refs to put the whistles away so Colin Campbells boy could get to the finals, Tampa would have won game 7. Boston had no answer for their PP. Boston was TOTALLY ready for Vancouver's static perimeter game that only uses 2/3 of the ice. In 2011 Thomas would almost ALWAYS make the first save, he was in a zone that way, but if the rebound wasn't controlled, or if his defense let a cross ice pass squeeze through, it was a wide open net. I was screaming at the TV during that final wondering when Vigneault and the players would pull their heads out of their asses and see the wide open back door that they just never seemed to try. The whole put the puck on net and go for rebounds was a fantastic idea.....but it doesn't work when all you have is Burrows or Kesler all by themselves battling against the likes of Chara, Boychuk, McQuaid, Bergeron, Marchand, Campbell, Ference.....well 3 or 4 Bruins all at the same time anyhow. The stats that Thomas posted were incredible, but WAY too much of the credit goes to him and completely ignores the defense in front of him that let him see most everything, blocked what he didn't, and made sure that the shit he gave up was cleared away from danger.

The difference in that series was not the goaltenders, it was the teams in front of them and the suits behind the bench.

Nuckertuzzi wrote:The guy gave up 8 goals in 7 games, he wins the Cup and Conn Smythe largely due to that series alone and very deservingly so. It was a goaltending performance for the ages...and you use that one goal as an argument??? Weak, dude, weak. "Cloudier-esque"?..holy lord.

The 8 goal argument you guys keep clinging on to had a whole lot to do with Thomas's performance, you ever think of that? We never got the luxury of exploiting soft goaltending because it simply wasn't there save a select few instances. While Ryder was allowed to get wristers from the top of the circle go through our goalie and Marchand getting bad angle shots over his shoulder..just to name a few. Thomas hardly gave us easy ones to work with the way Lu did for them. Thomas took our will away and filled our heads with doubt while Lu handed it to them in spades. You know what a soft wrister over Thomas' shoulder would've done for our confidence? In a series that was about a head-to-head duel between two "equal" goalies Lu got schooled bigtime by the 37 year old and that my friends is the biggest reason we didn't win the Cup that year.

According to you, Luongo was the only player on the ice for us. Everyone here will concede that Luongo let a couple softies. What you consistently fail to see/understand/recognize/read/etc. is that the Canucks as a whole were forced into playing a different game (Boston's game) than they had played all year and all playoff long.

An analyst on CBC at the very beginning of the series said something like, "If Vancouver uses their speed and turns this series into a trackmeet, Boston cannot win. If Vancouver slows down and plays Boston's game, the Bruins will take the cup home." (or something very close) ... Well, the latter happened.

How is Luongo responsible for the team standing 4 back against the blue line and allowing Boston to set up nearly every possession? How is Luongo responsible for our best offensive players passing pucks off or holding onto pucks when they should be shooting? How is Luongo responsible for absolutely no physcial response to any of Boston's garbage before and after whistles? How is Luongo responsible for a coach that had no answer other than to revert to "Game 6 vs Chicago" tactics?

You are justified only in that Luongo was guilty of letting through a couple untimely goals. It takes an entire team to win or lose a Stanely Cup (look at Boston completely collapsing in late game 6 this year...who's blaming Rask for that?) , and the last time I checked, Roberto Luongo was still in a massive scoring slump.

FAN wrote:Never said Luongo's numbers were terrible. I only said that Schneider outplayed him. Even with your mathematical adjustments, Schneider's numbers were still better across the board. This is not a slight against Luongo, Schneider was simply better. We didn't keep the better goaltender and Gillis knows it.

Don't really disagree with that but the difference in numbers becomes miniscule.. 0.08 goals allowed every sixty minutes becomes 2 goals after 25 games, so that would work out to probably four points in the standings over a full season at worst; maybe five if we're talking about 65 starts.

As a fan of the team, I was much more comfortable with Schneider in net. Luongo's playoff meltdowns have become such a regular occurrence that no lead is safe in the playoffs with Luongo in net. Part of a goaltender's job is to keep the team in the game. He hasn't done that on a consistent basis in the playoffs. For some reason he's been almost mentally fragile after his first series against the Hawks. It's not about Luongo having a bad start.

He's fragile, except when he's not. Until game 7 in the finals, any game in those playoffs where a loss would have put the team behind in a series Luongo's numbers were stellar. I'm not going to do the math again and the board where I posted it is gone but iirc his save percentage was over .950 in those games up until the finals. Of course it's hard not to let the bitterness of the SCF loss colour perception of his overall performance.

I can excuse a bad start, but how many games have we watched Luongo get shelled after looking sharp for more than 20 minutes? That's not a bad start. That's a meltdown. And I don't buy into the team hanging him out to dry, not when Luongo decides to "time" things by flopping on his belly hoping that his glove catches the puck instead of simply staying in position.

I agree with your evaluation of Luongo but I don't agree that the rest of the team should be let off the hook. How many times have we seen them fail to stem the tide when they are under pressure, and continue to surrender grade A chances? How many times have we seen them fail to adjust and get back to playing a simple game when they are running around?

I just don't think it's right to pin everything on the goaltender, even if he does look stupid on a bunch of goals. Anyway not much to discuss on that front so we might as well just agree to disagree.

Nuckertuzzi wrote:The guy gave up 8 goals in 7 games, he wins the Cup and Conn Smythe largely due to that series alone and very deservingly so. It was a goaltending performance for the ages... <snip> In a series that was about a head-to-head duel between two "equal" goalies Lu got schooled bigtime by the 37 year old and that my friends is the biggest reason we didn't win the Cup that year.

Yeppers. Thomas put on one of the greatest goal tending displays I have ever seen that series. I do beg anyone to find a better display of goal tending in any series ever.

ORCA wrote:An analyst on CBC at the very beginning of the series said something like, "If Vancouver uses their speed and turns this series into a trackmeet, Boston cannot win. If Vancouver slows down and plays Boston's game, the Bruins will take the cup home." (or something very close) ... Well, the latter happened.

MayRay got his back broken, and we lost the ability to rush the puck with speed. And after that, we played the style the Bruins wanted us to play. MayRay's broken back was a huge reason that we lost the series. Oh, and the fact that AV was once again out-coached, and didn't bother to adapt the Canucks style to the new opponent.

ORCA wrote:An analyst on CBC at the very beginning of the series said something like, "If Vancouver uses their speed and turns this series into a trackmeet, Boston cannot win. If Vancouver slows down and plays Boston's game, the Bruins will take the cup home." (or something very close) ... Well, the latter happened.

MayRay got his back broken, and we lost the ability to rush the puck with speed. And after that, we played the style the Bruins wanted us to play. MayRay's broken back was a huge reason that we lost the series. Oh, and the fact that AV was once again out-coached, and didn't bother to adapt the Canucks style to the new opponent.